The size of the product’s boxes in comparison to the volume of the candy contained therein makes it appear to plaintiff and class members that they are buying more than what is actually being sold. Plaintiff and class members are denied the benefit of their bargain because they pay for full boxes of the product but actually receive far less.

Daniel's beef stems from a Junior Mints purchase she made last month. She argues the box "contained approximately 40 percent non-functional slack-fill."

As if having too much air isn't bad enough, Daniel believes the candy contains more air than other popular offerings, like Milk Duds and Good n Plenty.

"Competitors’ product boxes are similar in size to defendant’s product boxes -- yet contain far more candy," the suit alleges. "This demonstrates that it is possible to fit a greater quantity of candy into defendant’s product’s boxes."

If she thinks there's a lot of air in boxes of candy, we strongly urge Daniel not to open a bag of potato chips.

Tootsie Roll has not commented on the matter, although lawyers for the company did say other cases like this one were never proven in court.

Daniel is the lead plaintiff and is looking for other people to join her cause. While we wait to see just how this plays out, we can't help but think this is now the second-most ridiculous matter to be associated with Junior Mints. Seinfeld, of course, takes the top spot.